> Sometimes that reorg could be deeper if you would be lucky enough to get a block with more work than N following blocks combined
Each block is credited for its contribution to total chainwork by the difficulty target, not the hash of the block itself. On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:42 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > - 1 block reorgs: these are a regular feature on mainnet, everyone > should cope with them; having them happen multiple times a day to > make testing easier should be great > > Anyone can do 1 block reorg, because nonce is not signed, so anyone can > replace that with better value. For example, if you have block > 00000086d6b2636cb2a392d45edc4ec544a10024d30141c9adf4bfd9de533b53 with > 0x0007f4cc nonce, you can replace that with 0x00110241 nonce and get > 000000096a1c4239d994547185c80308a552cba85d5bd28a51e9dc583ae5eadb block, > where everything is identical, except the nonce. > > Sometimes that reorg could be deeper if you would be lucky enough to get a > block with more work than N following blocks combined. > > On 2021-09-08 09:59:29 user Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 06:07:47PM +0200, 0xB10C via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > The reorg-interval X very much depends on the user's needs. One could > > argue that there should be, for example, three reorgs per day, each 48 > > blocks apart. > > Oh, wow, I think the last suggestion was every 100 blocks (every > ~16h40m). Once every ~8h sounds very convenient. > > > Such a short reorg interval allows developers in all time > > zones to be awake during one or two reorgs per day. > > And also for there to reliably be reorgs when they're not awake, which > might be a useful thing to be able to handle, too :) > > > Developers don't > > need to wait for, for example, a week until they can test their reorgs > > next. However, too frequent reorgs could hinder other SigNet users. > > Being able to run `bitcoind -signet -signetacceptreorg=0` and never > seeing any reorgs should presumably make this not a problem? > > For people who do see reorgs, having an average of 2 or 3 additional > blocks every 48 blocks is perhaps a 6% increase in storage/traffic. > > > # Scenario 1: Race between two chains > > > > For this scenario, at least two nodes and miner scripts need to be > > running. An always-miner A continuously produces blocks and rejects > > blocks with the to-be-reorged version bit flag set. And a race-miner R > > that only mines D blocks at the start of each interval and then waits X > > blocks. A and R both have the same hash rate. Assuming both are well > > connected to the network, it's random which miner will first mine and > > propagate a block. In the end, the A miner chain will always win the > race. > > I think this description is missing that all the blocks R mines have > the to-be-reorged flag set. > > > 3. How deep should the reorgs be on average? Do you want to test > > deeper reorgs (10+ blocks) too? > > Super interested in input on this -- perhaps we should get optech to > send a survey out to their members, or so? > > My feeling is: > > - 1 block reorgs: these are a regular feature on mainnet, everyone > should cope with them; having them happen multiple times a day to > make testing easier should be great > > - 2-3 block reorgs: good for testing the "your tx didn't get enough > confirms to be credited to your account" case, even though it barely > ever happens on mainnet > > - 4-6 block reorgs: likely to violate business assumptions, but > completely technically plausible, especially if there's an attack > against the network > > - 7-100 block reorgs: for this to happen on mainnet, it would probably > mean there was a bug and pools/miners agree the chain has to > be immediately reverted -- eg, someone discovers and exploits an > inflation bug, minting themselves free bitcoins and breaking the 21M > limit (eg, the 51 block reorg in Aug 2010); or someone discovers a > bug that splits the chain, and the less compatible chain is reverted > (eg, the 24 block reorg due to the bdb lock limit in Mar 2013); > or something similar. Obviously the bug would have to have been > discovered pretty quickly after it was exploited for the reorg to be > under a day's worth of blocks. > > - 100-2000+ block reorgs: severe bug that wasn't found quickly, or where > getting >50% of miners organised took more than a few hours. This will > start breaking protocol assumptions, like pool payouts, lightning's > relative locktimes, or liquid's peg-in confirmation requirements, and > result in hundres of MBs of changes to the utxo set > > Maybe it would be good to do reorgs of 15, 150 or 1500 blocks as a > special fire-drill event, perhaps once a month/quarter/year or so, > in some pre-announced window? > > I think sticking to 1-6 block reorgs initially is a fine way to start > though. > > > After enough testing, the default SigNet can start to do periodical > > reorgs, too. > > FWIW, the only thing that concerns me about doing this on the default > signet is making sure that nodes that set -signetacceptreorg=0 don't > end up partitioning the p2p network due to either rejecting a higher > work chain or rejecting txs due to double-spends across the two chains. > > A quick draft of code for -signetacceptreorg=0 is available at > > https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/commits/202108-signetreorg > > Cheers, > aj > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
